I would disagree with your assessment that “telling people to stop procreating” is inherently malevolent, provided it is communicated in a reasonable, rational, and well-meaning manner. I agree that attributing negative value to procreation, and a subject acting on that attribution, could potentially deprive them of the happiness they might otherwise have experienced. However, I believe that bringing a being into existence is not in that being’s best interest. They are not missing out on anything, as they do not exist yet and therefore do not experience anything. So, the only one “losing” here is the parental subject, who may walk into a lonely life (which, in itself, is debatable).

If, however, a parent brings a child into existence, they expose that child to a high likelihood of numerous adversities: depression, anxiety, diabetes, cancer, insomnia, hunger, poverty, asthma, accidents, bereavement, and more. Beyond these, there are also political, economic (as you alluded to), and environmental conditions that make a child’s life significantly harder. Moreover, by bringing a child into existence, you are imposing on them the risk of “growing old living a miserable, lonely life”—in case they cannot have children, or do not want to, perhaps for reasoning similar to mine above.

So, the solution you propose to avoid loneliness is to pass the question onto another being. Would it not be more favorable to not impose so much suffering on another being, just to avoid our own loneliness? If it is loneliness we wish to combat, should we not explore other suffering-free solutions?

As for your equivalence of the poet’s words and “bad parents”, I interpret them slightly differently. The poet says:

They may not mean to, but they do.

This suggests that the act, in itself, stems from ignorance, and not malice. I do not interpret this as “bad parents”, but rather as ignorant beings. Most people do not engage in the moral calculus of bringing a new being into existence; they do not assess the pros and cons of the matter. For most, they do it because it makes them happy, is socially acceptable, and increases the probability of having a safety net in their old age. This doesn’t necessarily make them “bad” in my view, but rather ignorant. I find myself fortunate that I was able to weigh this before procreating. For the few who have thought about this, cannot come up with a counter-argument, and still choose to have children, I would personally consider them immoral and self-centered. For those with strong counter-arguments, I would want to hear them. Perhaps, it will change my mind on the topic as well.

None of my views promotes violence of any kind. I am not taking this stance due to hatred of children (I do not hate them). I simply think that they enter a lose-lose scenario by coming into existence.

^ To anyone reading this: I am so sorry for opening up a debate in a shitpost, lol. As for the em-dash, I generated it with the compose key; these are my words, not an LLMs.

Why is it disgraceful and offensive? I mean, you could argue it’s disgraceful if said in a militant manner in an unprompted scenario, but in a general discussion or a debate, why is it considered disgraceful and offensive?

Really? So what?

A lot of people are either poor or simply don’t have a need for art, which is why they don’t buy it. The buyers are the appreciative, non-poor individuals. Before GenAI, artists had a market, they produced work for these buyers, whether for legitimate use or pure appreciation.

Now, GenAI is eroding that market. Legitimate users just use GenAI for “good enough” results, and appreciative buyers lower their standards by flooding themselves with GenAI content.

Meanwhile, the poor folk push back against the normalization of such art which wrecks the art industry. They’re doing what they can.